KO was overwrought on Friday, but what he said was spot on. What Hillary Clinton did by invoking Robert F. Kennedy’s late primary win (and, unnecessarily, assassination — for the second time in two months) to bolster her case for staying in the race is beyond the pale.
It became more so after the non-apology (the usual “I’m sorry if I offended anyone,” and it didn’t at all address the context of assassination and Obama). It was more egregious that her comparison in the remarks to Bill’s 1992 race that she claimed wasn’t wrapped up until June, something she has also repeated, wasn’t even true.
While she said that he only wrapped up the nomination in June of that year, he was viewed as having secured it in March, when his last serious opponent dropped out.FYI: The number of hate groups operating in this country has increased 48% since Bush took office. Taking what Clinton said lightly or as an indication of a moment of fatigue is not an option (for me, anyway).
Between the political dog whistles floated and denied over the course of the primary season by the Clinton campaign, and the overt statements by voters that race is an issue for them, you simply cannot ignore the first black man to be a serious contender for the presidency is a man with a target on his back and words do mean something — particularly coming from a candidate. That Senator Clinton’s campaign doesn’t care to or doesn’t want to admit what she said has an interpretation other than a slight to the Kennedy family is BS. We’re not talking about her believing she wants something horrible to befall her opponent, it’s the lack of discretion and judgment in raising the issue not once, but twice.
Sadly, our country is too sick and too incapable of dealing with the race-based hatred, ignorance and fear that has bubbled up during this primary season, and the reality is that we have a man willing to take the personal risk to run for president in spite of this.
And that is what Keith Olbermann addressed.
The transcript is here.
106 Responses to “Keith Olbermann’s special comment on Clinton’s remarks”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
In any event, the RFK assassination is irrelevant as well as being revolting to raise in the context of Obama.
This isn’t 1968; delegates are almost complete chosen by primary today which wasn’t the case in 1968. RFK enter the race late, believing there was no point to running against a sitting president until McCarthy shocked the country in New Hampshire and LBJ pulled out. Clinton has lost more primaries and failed to get a winnable delegate count despite being in the race from the beginning.
And her current round of race baiting is repulsive.
“And her current round of race baiting is repulsive.”
Yeah right: like black people are the only ones who get assassinated!
Keith Olbermann is a self-righteous windbag. He used to have some credibility, but more and more I think he takes drugs before he goes on the air to do his tirades.
Clinton is welcome to stay in the race as long as she wants, and she’s probably right that doing so increases her odds of getting the nomination in the event of an assassination. But her tactlessness is incredible, it shows a tremendous lack of judgment, and it really shocked me. I can’t say I was a supporter, though I would have (and still would, she would be running against a Republican, after all) voted for her in the general election. But I really don’t like her and her political method. I expected some backstabbing comments, but not a comment about backstabbing.
Even when she’s right about something (and, unlike her comments regarding math and delegates and Florida and Michigan, this does have some truth to it,) she comes across as unsavory. And unsavory doesn’t win elections.
RFK hadn’t even entered the race until March of ‘68, and by June only 13 primaries had been held. Folks kinda sorta had to wait for the process to sort out at the convention.
Not so this year.
Another point is being glossed over here due to the shocking nature of her use of the “a” word. Does Hillary Clinton actually not understand why people want her out of the race? Really? Nonsense. Remove the shock of her use of the “a” word, and it’s still more idiotic political dissembling. Too often, we’re having to ask of her what we often ask about The Current President: Is she lying, or is she just stupid?
Yes, Keith Olbermann was a bit overwrought, and no, I don’t think Clinton’s intention was nefarious, but still, I say Go Keith! This was a big mistake on Clinton’s part. And for a couple reasons, I hope it gets whipped into a frenzy and forces her departure from the race.
My first reason is visceral. I have often felt fear for Obama’s life. The assassinations from the 60s are still too close, and there are a lot of crazy people. To bring up RFK’s assassination stirs all those fears within me.
My second is payback. After watching Hillary Clinton stand next to Barack Obama and deliberately misconstrue his “bitter” comments and deliberately twist his meaning, I have zero sympathy for any parsing of her comments. She’s a consummate politician. She knows how words can be twisted. So let her suffer from that, too.
The whole thing is just sort of sad.
I started off as a Hillary supporter. She’s now a shadow of her former self. She has retreated from all of her strengths at this point. I don’t know who she is anymore. I don’t think she knows either.
She said she doesn’t think her staying in the race is hurting party unity. She used RFK’s assasination in June to argue that primaries going into the summer are OK. (Meanwhile, she’s glossing over the fact that the Dems lost that year.) The fact is that we’re going to need some serious time to heal the rifts between Hillary and Obama’s supporters. For her to pretend otherwise reveals how out-of-touch she truly is.
Recently she has been openly flirting with the idea of taking this to the convention. While I think her assasination reference was a stupid, stupid gaffe hopefully it serves a purpose– hopefully this will end sooner rather than later.
Lisa Desjardins, CNN Radio reporter extraordinaire, says that Obama’s secret service contingent, and the security procedures surrounding his immediate person, are larger than any she’s ever seen, and have been since very early this year. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.
It’s like Brady Bonk wrote…is she lying or is she stupid?
I was leaning toward Clinton until the Wright mess. I began being an ObamaMama after watching Wright purposely broadside Barry and then watching Clinton use it all as political fodder and even side with McCain on the matter.
I hate it that I’ve gotten so anti-Clinton Clan because I’ve always like Bill, but her total lack of ethics during this campaign process has shown me a side of the Clintons that I can’t stomach.
She played to the racist element and still her supporters rallied round. Will the assassination spectre finally make them wake up?
Haven’t we had enough of lying fearmongers?
Being a feminist, I’m so disappointed that the first woman with a real chance of winning has stooped to such vile tactics. At least it proves that females are equal to males in the ability to conduct a scorched earth campaign. I’m not sure it’s something we ladies should be proud of, however.
Menopausal Mick
(I’m camping and using wireless. I posted this earlier but it looks like it got lost so I’ll try again…if this is a double post please delete one…thanks)
It’s like Brady Bonk wrote…is she lying or is she stupid?
I was leaning toward Clinton until the Wright mess. I began being an ObamaMama after watching Wright purposely broadside Barry and then watching Clinton use it all as political fodder and even side with McCain on the matter.
I hate it that I’ve gotten so anti-Clinton Clan because I’ve always like Bill, but her total lack of ethics during this campaign process has shown me a side of the Clintons that I can’t stomach.
She played to the racist element and still her supporters rallied round. Will the assassination spectre finally make them wake up?
Haven’t we had enough of lying fearmongers?
Being a feminist, I’m so disappointed that the first woman with a real chance of winning has stooped to such vile tactics. At least it proves that females are equal to males in the ability to conduct a scorched earth campaign. I’m not sure it’s something we ladies should be proud of, however.
Menopausal Mick
god I hate wireless
Whatever she meant or didn’t mean, what sprang into my mind on hearing her remarks was “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” Let’s all hope that no misguided lunatic takes her words as an implied wish. *shudder*
Brady Bonk May 24, 2008 at 10:50 am
The Current President: Is she lying, or is she just stupid?
I think the DNC and party elders came down hard on her a) she cannot undermine the primary process b) she cannot divide the party base anymore.
So that’s why you see how her channel suddenly stop talking about delegate math or race baiting. This after KY (hard working white people comment)
I think everybody is aware that Hillary is upping Obama’s negative, while considerably shortening GE campaigning season by staying in race.
I for one think Hillary is ripe for her macaca moment soon. She still doesn’t understand how the internet work. She think it’s a form of mass media.
“Lisa Desjardins, CNN Radio reporter extraordinaire, says that Obama’s secret service contingent, and the security procedures surrounding his immediate person, are larger than any she’s ever seen, and have been since very early this year. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.”
Does Lisa Desjardins happen to know who decides how much security one candidate receives? I think that information could be very helpful in assessing the situation.
And my point still stands: black people are not the exclusive targets of racist or sexist or otherwise delusional crazies. Pope John Paul II, Benazir Bhutto, Ronald Reagan, John Lennon and Indira Ghandi should serve to remind us that people are targeted for a wide range of reasons.
Even Obama’s campaign manager blew this off. I would not have brought up assassinations myself, since that is not the central reason why primaries tend to be prolonged, but Hillary Clinton’s basic point was a valid one: these things have historically gone on much longer. And who cares if it takes till August to reach a verdict?
Senator Clinton has previously demonstrated she’s as capable a legislator as most of our Congress is. But during this campaign, she’s demonstrated another aptitude: she’s very gifted as a drama queen.
For one who has been adept at breaking gender stereotypes, she’s shown the dual talent of also reinforcing some. And while most people have - from the outset and throughout - NOT called on her to bow out of the race, the minority that have she uses as an excuse to justify anything she does as appropriate.
That’s the same sort of hubris the nation has tired of in our current drama king president. She has succeeded in creating more opponents among the superdelegates instead of gaining their support. Incompetence then, bears its own reward, despite the freer hand granted to men in that regard.
Seeking gender equity shouldn’t be a push to grant everyone unwarranted rewards for acting like an ass. It should, instead, be limiting the men who behave that way. Otherwise equity turns only to anarchy.
And Hillary has turned herself into a caricature, potentially creating new impediments for women in doing so.
‘Spot on’? Your own point about “the lack of discretion and judgment in raising the issue not once, but twice” doesn’t really match up with the frothing-at-the-mouth diatribe provided by Olbermann in which he suggests HRC is ‘heartless’ and ‘frightening’, not to mention the litany of transgressions she’s apparently been ‘forgiven’ for in the recent past (by whom? Not the MSM, as far as I can tell).
I think it’s completely unacceptable for an experienced politician to claim anything that rehearsed that comes out of her mouth wasn’t thoroughly thought through for dog whistles, especially since it’s not the first time she’s referenced the assassination.
I also hate how she’s apologizing to the Kennedys as if the notion of assassination could only bother them.
The assholes over on the fox news site are just annoyed that Obama has to make everything about him and that you can’t say anything anymore without being called racist.
In the last month, Huckabee has joked about Obama being shot and he’s been pictured with gunsights over his photo. No one should be surprised that referencing “assassination” instead of just “campaigning” would make people think of the presumptive candidate’s murder. Short of outright stealing it, that’s the only way she’d get his votes and delegates.
The Clinton non apology was just sad, but the Clinton defense is completely nonsensical. The 1968 Democratic primary is if anything a point against the claim Clinton claims she was making. Leave the assassination out of it for a moment, and her argument still makes no sense: “We’ve had late primaries before and aside from the riots and the losing to Nixon everything went just fine…”
I don’t think Clinton is an idiot, I think she knows what she is doing and says what she means. For all the crying about sexism, I think the paternalistic attitude that we have to defend Clinton is more offensively sexist than any of the trumped up complaints about Obama saying “periodically”. Hillary Clinton is a grownup, and she is responsible for her own actions.
The clinton non apology was offensive enough, but her excuse makes absolutely no sense. If she were really trying to say what she now claims, the 1968 Democratic convention would be an argument against that.
For the moment, leave the assassination angle out of it, she’s still pointing to a convention that had riots and resulted in a loss to Nixon as an example of a late primary. That’s not a good thing.
I don’t think Clinton is a complete moron, so I refuse to believe she would choose that example to make the point she now claims to be making.
Who indeed?
“Who indeed?”
Is that link your mental aid to telling time? I really don’t see the point of it. When the fat lady sings is when this campaign is over, and if it takes a toll on preparations for the final race, then so be it.
There has never been this much virulent crap flying in effort to get a male candidate out of the race. No one pressured McCain to move over for Bush in 2000, and now people should just STFU and let the process run its course.
If they don’t, McCain will run a bulldozer over the Democrats in November and that’s all there is too it.
I don’t think that’s true. In fact, the reverse is true - there’s never been a candidate whose completely mathematically-impossible candidacy has been indulged as long as Clinton’s. She’s enjoyed literally every possible institutional advantage, and still couldn’t pull it off.
“She’s enjoyed literally every possible institutional advantage, and still couldn’t pull it off.”
Right, like the sexist media? Obama is the one who has enjoyed the advantage of an old boys network that would rather make fun of women than say something nasty about a black person.
I actually don’t care who wins between them; if there is not a joint-ticket, then they will respectively get crushed in the general election. So the longer they want to drag this slow waltz out is fine with me, but if it doesn’t end in the promised unification, then Democrats are truly fucked.
I am sure that the MSM (lap dog of the Bush Admin) will turn on Obama if he secures the nomination. It will be all Reverend-terrorist-wife hates America-secret gay lifestyle-former drug user all the time. Game over.
Bullshit, Amanda. Sorry but you are way off base on this. All Clinton did was give a couple of examples of primaries that lasted until June. She may have been stupid to use the Kennedy example but it’s just as stupid to think she was insinuating that Obama should or might be assassinated. That is frankly ridiculous and I can’t believe you’d be so dumb as to buy into that nonsense.
…[I]t does appear that the longer she continues her hopeless campaign, the more she’s losing her handle on what is and isn’t appropriate to say. As she continues to make the most graceless exit of any presidential candidate in memory, it’s her supporters more than her opponents who should be hoping this thing comes to its merciful end.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080523.WBwbradwanski20080523190910/WBStory/WBwbradwanski/
I can’t believe you’d be so dumb as to not read who actually wrote the post, but I digress…“As she continues to make the most graceless exit of any presidential candidate in memory, it’s her supporters more than her opponents who should be hoping this thing comes to its merciful end.”
Oh come now, let’s not forget Howard Dean: “ARRGHH!”
And then there was John Kerry: Swift-boated into flip flops and premature gray hair. He didn’t even have the balls to defend himself. At the very least, Clinton has that going for her.
I am hoping she sticks it out till August. I think super delegates will spend the summer away from Washington, and will reach the obvious conclusion that she is the best person for the job because she can win the big states, the “racist” states, and the states in whch McCain is strong. Obama can win with redneck sexists and young people–in Montana and Iowa and other provincial places–but he will get his ass kicked in the places that matter.
I can’t believe that anyone who listens to her does not understand her as implying that it’s worth it for her to stay in the race in case Obama is assasinated. As someone who lived through that string of political assasinations it’s the first thought that went through my mind. And she has that context too.
Disgusting.
All Clinton did was give a couple of examples of primaries that lasted until June.
Then why didn’t she say “Bobby Kennedy’s campaign lasted until June”, rather than “we all remember Bobby Kennedy getting assassinated in June”?
What on Earth does an assassination have to do with the calendar?
Many people lost jobs when Sec.936 was scratched. I know Hillary is not Bill but the fact that she would lie and say it was the Republican Congress who eliminated 936 is a joke. Everybody knows it was President Clinton. This is not helping her cause on the island.
Hillary knows her husband and one of her biggest supporters on the island (ex-Governor Rossello) were responsible for the death of 936. I have no idea why she didn’t just distance herself from Bill (like CAFTA) and instead lied about how things went down. Puertorricans are not naive and can see straight through the spin. This strengthens her position with the PNP (pro-statehood) group but completly negates any chance she has at getting votes from the PPD (pro-commonwealth).
The island is split almost 50/50 in support of either party.
www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/24/16390/7166
oboy, she really need to work on that lying habit.
It appears that Senator Clinton is being attacked once again for making a factual statement. Of course msnbc cannot accept anyone but obama.
I have watched with amusement and then amazement at the msnbc team of olberman, matthews, fineman and alter as they nightly pummel Senator Clinton and deify obama.
Pam, I don’t know if you’re so far gone that you actually believe this horseshit or if you’ve decided to be as deceitful as your say-anything-to-win candidate, Obama, but you’ve crossed a line.
I’m glad that you’ve shown your true colors though; now anyone with an IQ above their shoe-size (which seems to exclude the majority of Obama supporters) knows that you can’t be trusted as a source of information. I’m sure that wasn’t your intent, but that’s the result.
Enjoy your Kool-Aid, swiftboater.
Meanwhile, those of us who were willing to tolerate a unity ticket are now done. Good job on continuing the intraparty division that Obama started.
Politics of hope and change my ass.
“Politics of hope and change my ass”
Yeah, when people cite Keith Olbermann as a credible and mentally balanced source of insight, I get chills up my spine. The man needs to quit jerking off before he goes to work or something.
Semidi–
Do you have anything constructive to add? Or did you just come here to string together a list of cliched insults?
Hillary opened her mouth and stuck her foot in up to her knee– not Pam and not Obama. You can be mad when other people point this out but it’s rather silly to blame anyone other than Hillary for this.
semidi
It seems both sides have something they can now agree on.
Oh and btw if my show size were greater than my IQ, it would give a new meaning to “big foot.” But I know it wasn’t your intent to insult all Obama supporters, especially those who’ve never thrown an insult at a Clinton supporter, but that’s the result.
* * *
and tsk, tsk, task Foucault you must have missed ealier in the Special Comment where Olbermann said these words (embolden mine):
Because I’m quite sure KO remembers this
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/08/24/ted-nugent-threatens-to-kill-barack-obama-and-hillary-clinton-during-vicious-onstage-rant/
“and tsk, tsk, task Foucault you must have missed ealier in the Special Comment where Olbermann said these words (embolden mine)
You actually used the word “assassination” in the middle of a campaign with a loud undertone of racial hatred - and gender hatred - and political hatred.”
Uh gee, based on Olbermann’s dickweed logic, I guess no one should ever be able to use the word “assassination” during a political campaign again! Because we all know that most every political campaign involves political hatred, and we all know that saying it makes it so…
And I guess Olbermann’s second windbag bellow only goes to show that he’ll have to add an addendum if Condi Rice somehow gets into the mix. He kind of forgot about her here, didn’t he?
“You actually used the word “assassination” in a time when there is a fear, unspoken but vivid and terrible, that our again-troubled land and fractured political landscape might target a black man running for president.
Or a white man.
Or a white woman!”
What an asshat. I guess he really needed to cover all his bases, didn’t he. But what about those Latino men? And the Latina women who might one day run for president? Shouldn’t Keith be worried about how using a scary word like “assassination” could also dash THEIR hopes?
Oh Foucault you may have missed this part of the special comment too:
Did you listen, or even read the special comment at all, or are you objecting just to object?
oh and as far as a gaffe … how many times does something have to be said before it’s no longer a gaffe?
That isn’t directed at you Foucault. I just putting it out there.
Obama forgives Clinton, so the rest of you crazies (particularly Clymnestra) can say whatever you want:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4925145&page=1
And this stuff that you cite Clymnestra might be interesting if Olbermann did not get unhinged and pee his pants deriding people week after week. He needs professional help of the same kind that Spitzer probably could have used before his fall from grace: he has a god complex.
I’ve heard on the Internet rumor circuit that Olbermann is a total pig to women, but that’s no doubt why you want to kiss his ass.
http://www.jossip.com/keith-olbermann-adds-beating-women-senseless-to-msnbcs-pimping-list-20080425/
Other greatest hit
“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated”
“working, hard-working Americans, white Americans”
“Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”
“When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation and you know what I’m talking about”
oh for Cthulhu’s sake Foucault are you purposefully being obtuse?. . . there aint nothing running in this campaign at this moment but old white men, a black man and a white woman.
Your list above named women who have been assassinated, but none of them were on this soil. Please list one who was.
I’m not dismissing all those who were assassinated out side the US. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto affected me far more than you will ever know. For a bit of irony, or a point in time filled with deep meaning, I will be standing on the spot where she was killed, sometime during the Democratic National Convention.
But for our history NOW, OUR history, those who have been assassinated who are in the political fray have been white and black men.
Did you watch the security Obama had during his Portland rally? Clinton’s I haven’t seen that many agents around Clinton.
Oh, but I just love how the Hillary groupies are in full troll mode today….
First, to Foucault: If Keith Olbermann is that much of a phony and a dirtbag merely because he doesn’t deify Hillary and Bill Clinton as Goddess’ gift to Presidential candidates, then what does that make him the other 99.99998% of the time when he fires his guns at George W. Bush and the Republicans??? Or, maybe, you’d prefer Karl Rove as your political genius, because he’s one of the few who give Hillary even the slightest chance of winning the nomination??
Not that I’m necessarily an Obama booster myself, but what Hillary Clinton said yesterday was not only totally brain dead and tone-deaf, but completely in line with her “If I can’t have it this year, then nobody will” strategy of deliberately tanking this election so that she can rise up in 2012 as the modern day Joan of Arc. And in the face of the history of Black leaders being targeted for assassinations (Malcolm X, MLK, Fred Hampton, et al., to deliberately quote Bobby Kennedy’s assassination (especially with the news of Ted Kennedy’s terminal illness) as a justification for her campaign to ride the string all the way to the convention in spite of all the evidence and facts against her….that is eapecially loathsome and disgusting.
Unfortunately, it is simply the lowest moment of a campaign strategy by HRC to play the worst of right-wing “populist” and thinly-veiled racist cards to blow up the Democratic Party process and grease the wheels for McCain’s victory.
But, hey….she’s a woman who’s been attacked by the evil men who just don’t want a woman in the top spot…so let’s just give her a free pass for her own mistakes and deflect critcism towards either the messengers or the opposition.
Ahhh….no. Simply, no. This is all Hillary’s fault (or at least, Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe’s), and they should own their words and apologize to everyone (not only to the Kennedys with a phony “if I offended someone” fax); and then they should do the right thing and drop out and acknowlege reality.
Whether they or you like it or not; Barack Obama is going to be the Democratc nominee for President of the United States. Support him or oppose him if you will, but let’s end this BS game and prepare for the general election.
Besides, back in November last year, when it was assumed that Hillary would be the odds-on favorite to run and hide with the nomination, I didn’t see anyone here moaning and groaning about any evil media plot against her. (Well, other than the usual misogynist windbags, and they deserve to be called out too.)
Oh..and memo to Semidi: I’d think that you would know better than to ever attack a Black person for not having “an IQ higher than a shoe size”. I thought that Obama supporters were supposed to be overeducated elitsts??? (And what does that make me, a Black man who is supporting Cynthis McKinney and the Green Party and who isn’t even a Democrat, but is simply fed up with Hillary’s antics??
Anthony
Foucault
LOL …. LOL … ROTFLOL ..
really, LOL
stop LOL
ROTFLMAO
I am not going to argue with a loose cannon. Obama has accepted Clinton’s explanation for her poor choice of words, and I think that should satisfy you. But I’m sure you’d rather get Keith’s opinion on how to feel before trusting Obama, right?
“First, to Foucault: If Keith Olbermann is that much of a phony and a dirtbag merely because he doesn’t deify Hillary and Bill Clinton as Goddess’ gift to Presidential candidates, then what does that make him the other 99.99998% of the time when he fires his guns at George W. Bush and the Republicans???”
He used to be funny and sort of compelling, but lately he is just scary. He’s become a caricature of himself, and thus dismiss-able. But that is really the nature of “freedom of speech” on American TV. Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Keith Olbermann, etc… are all personalities that I once “admired” as sort of telling it like it is. Now, they have become entertainment.
Some of it is interesting (Colbert in particular), but Olbermann is a joke. He needs professional help if he takes himself half as seriously as you seem to take him.
Then you should be PRAISING Obama, Foucault.
So I had no opinion on this before KO special comment. Wow all the commenting I did on dailyKos before his SC and I didn’t have an opinion . . . . wow
I didn’t even get to see Keith’s SC before midnight EDT because I was at a school function listening to my 15 yo son sing.
But g’head Foucault, keep suggsting that I have a USB connection in my little finger so I can download KO’s opinion directly to my brain stem before going out each morning. . . if that makes you happy
I just find your assertions of great amusement — so keep it up
Who cares?
Generally any Democrat who wants to see our Party win the General Election in November is who cares.
Please don’t tell me you buy into the progressive pipe dream that there is such a thing as a “sure thing” win this fall for our Party. I heard the voices of many, many, many true believers on our side of the fence proclaim that there was NO WAY that Bush could win in 2004, because he had messed everything up in this country so bad that Kerry had to be a lock to win the election that year.
That one didn’t work out so well.
No matter how imminently beatable John McCain might look to us all right now, no matter how bad George Bush and the Republicans have messed this country over the past 8 years, no matter what polls may be telling us right now about “electability”…
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY’S ABILITY TO WIN ELECTIONS AGAINST SEEMINGLY INSURMOUNTABLE ODDS.
They’ve done it before, and until I see Barack Obama’s name on the front page of every paper in the country with the words “President-Elect” under it, I won’t discount the possibility that even with every imagineable factor favoring us, that John McCain could still become the 44th President of the United States.
And don’t try to impress upon me the tired “Hillary is more electable” meme. Polls taken in May for the General Election mean jack squat in November.
Ask John Kerry. He would know firsthand.
Supposedly, he was “the most electable” candidate in 2004.
“Then you should be PRAISING Obama, Foucault.”
I DO praise him! He’s the only one with any common sense at this point. They need to unify or we are FUCKED. Big time. End of story.
Ahhhh….of course, Foucault, Obama would take the high road and accept Hillary’s “apology”; that’s how he usually handles himself in such matters. But, that changes nothing about what she said.
And for all your personal obsessions about KO (and BTW, I do think that he should bust Democrats a hell of a lot more than he usually does, especially those Dems who cross the aisle to support Republican policies), you still don’t say why, other than the fact that he doesn’t give Hillary the free pass you think she should get, he all of a sudden is an inept clown.
But…I guess that you’d prefer those who can “keep it real”….like, for instance, John Gibson or Bill O’Reilly or Michael Savage or even Rush Limbaugh,,,,all of whom, BTW, have said nice things about Hillary’s campaign?? That alone should give pause to all you Clinton groupies.
Anthony
They’ve done it before, and until I see Barack Obama’s name on the front page of every paper in the country with the words “President-Elect” under it, I won’t discount the possibility that even with every imagineable factor favoring us, that John McCain could still become the 44th President of the United States.
We’re talking about Republicans here. I’m sure that the fact that in between “President Elect” and “So Help Me God” Obama would still be mortal hasn’t escaped their attention…
“he all of a sudden is an inept clown.”
No, he’s been an inept clown for months now, if not years. If you aren’t tired of his holier-than-thou wailing yet, then there is not much I can say to help your impoverished mind.
On a total unrelated thread, why does your URL link to a sex-workers blog, Anthony? I am just curious… given your fawning over KO, you seem like someone who would have very little disregard for women, so this surprises me.
I don’t even know who the Republican pundits are, so please don’t expect me to comment on them. I don’t listen to batshit crazy people, including Olbermann. I am bipartisan in that way.
There really isn’t any reason to believe that. The advantages of a joint ticket are greatly overestimated (and the disadvantages underestimated).And of course, I’m of the opinion that the divide between the majority of supporters for the respective candidates is not so great as to cause an insurmountable divide.
Yeah, fuck Olbermann. Let’s turn to one of the countless other left wing or at least not-right-wing commentators on cable news. Like . . .
Uhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Alan Colmes?
Did you watch the security Obama had during his Portland rally? Clinton’s I haven’t seen that many agents around Clinton.
That’s because if it weren’t for the security detail, her rallies would consist entirely of campaign staffers and local news stringers who got the short end of the straw.
Why don’t you try gleaning your information from sources less mindless than TV? If the best thing out there is a shiny-eyed loon who foams at the mouth whenever he goes on the air, then we have serious problems. All the commentators are the same, anyhow. The format on TV is the same. It isn’t analysis: it is a group of high strung nutters yelling at each other.
Left wing Pundit speaks
Right wing Pundit rejoinder
Talk show host asks next question
Right wing Pundit speaks
Left wing pundit rejoinder
Talk show host asks more emotional question
Right wing pundit freaks out
Left wing pundit freaks out
All hell breaks loose for five seconds
Talk show host says we need a commercial break and asks right wing pundit to summarize position
By the way, I am really glad that Randi Roads was fired from All America. She was a total nut. I’d come home to hear my husband playing her nuttery, and it would send me over the edge. She should marry KO.
Ken Cope -
LOL
You know, Hillary has also told her supporters that she will support and campaign for Obama were he to win the nomination. She tells us that it would be a mistake to vote for McCain or to not vote. And she also said this at least three times without anyone calling her on it. After all this, I can’t help but believe there is some unspoken secret evil lie in this. Hah! she won’t fool me.
Final predictions
1. Clinton will not play hardball at the rules meeting and will accept a reasonable resolution. She will want to do so, but she won’t, because she’ll get a clear message from party leaders that they will not tolerate anymore of her scorched earth tactics. The RFK statement has destroyed any last political capital she had remaining with dem leaders and superdelegates.
2. She will suspend her campaign in a speech on June 3, after the Montana and South Dakota primaries. Why June 3? Because she doesn’t want to make a statement on or after June 5th, the 40th anniversary of Kennedy’s death. By quitting before June 5th, she’ll avoid having to answer renewed questions about her statement and why she hasn’t yet conceded or suspended her campaign. As June 5th nears, there will be a lot of discussion regarding the dangers to Obama and the history of political assassinations. This is not a climate to be continued a failed campaign after having made an offensive statement about assassination.
3. You will no longer hear calls from Clinton surrogates for Hillary to be made Vice President. Diane Feinstein on Friday pushed the dream ticket idea, a very strong sign that the VP slot was something Hillary wanted. Feinstein made the remark before the RFK gaffe came to light. I think Feinstein will be reconsidering her position on the dream ticket.
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/24/19629/2660/498/522234
I have to agree that RFK assassination anniversary will be the end of Hillz campaign.
It will take gigantic political skill and cutzpah to pass that date. Everybody will keep asking her “Why is she still in the race, after that day”
ugly.
Foucault:
Clearly, you haven’t noticed that none of us are Obama. He’s welcome to deal with Clinton’s comments in any way he chooses, and we’re neither required nor even expected to share his opinion on the matter.
And to be perfectly blunt, I don’t give a flying fuck what you think ought to satisfy me. I can honestly say that it never once occurred to me to wonder what you, of all people, thought about it.
Whereas you’ve always been a caricature, and at least from what I’ve seen, you’re pretty much universally dismissed by almost all of the regular readers of this blog as a pretentious git with absolutely nothing worthwhile to say.
For example, take this little assertion that anyone who doesn’t agree absolutely and immediately with everything you say is self-evidently deficient:
I’m sure I’m not the only one who will have noticed that despite your implicit claim to infallibility, you’ve completely failed to address the content of what Anthony actually said in any way.
So if you’re trying to impress everyone with how much you don’t suck at thinking, you’re not doing a very good job. As far as I’m concerned, the only real question left to be answered is that of whether you’re dishonest, craven, profoundly narcissistic, or just plain old stupid.
The extent of the damage hasn’t been fully understood yet.
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/25/43742/0705/366/522390
Hillary Clinton has so antagonized African-American voters that she is going to have a bumpy time of it if she ever runs for any elective office again. From my previous post:
According to the CNN exit polling, 16% of New York’s overall electorate was black, and she held her own pretty well, even garnering a remarkable 47 percent of those aged 60 and older.
But again, that was also before she started trash-talking Obama and his African-American base.
How many of those African-American voters are still supporting her today? How many would support her in a bid for Governor, or even her senate re-election campaign? In North Carolina this week, she got a pitiful 7% of the AA vote; in Indiana, she got 11%. Those are more typical of Republican election numbers than Democratic.
Granted, African-American support wasn’t critical in her 2006 re-election; she got 67% against token opposition (she won 88% of the black vote, though).
In her 2000 race she won 55/43, including 90 percent of the black vote (which was 11% of the electorate). If the African-American voters had sat out the election, she would have squeaked by with 45/43. And that was against numb-nuts Rick Laszio.
Imagine if she had to go up against a popular, well-funded numb-nuts, such as Rudy Giuliani. And what about primary challenges?
Today, under the headline, “Trouble brewing in N.Y. for Clinton - Black leaders say that if Hillary Rodham Clinton returns as senator, she’ll need to heal racial wounds her campaign has inflicted,” the LA Times finds people saying pretty much just what I predicted (always gratifying):
“The Clintons have their die-hard fans who would never abandon them,” said Eric Adams, a state senator who represents Brooklyn. “But there are those New Yorkers who feel there was a lot of insult, slight and disrespect toward an African American candidate, and it translated as a slight to the African American community.”
Clinton’s campaign declined to comment. In New York, she still enjoys the support of some high-profile black leaders. U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel has endorsed Clinton, as has the state’s first black governor, David Paterson. But both men have been critical of her recently.
squashed here’s a quote from that post that I like
If even Hillraisers and top donors have a probelm with her now . . . maybe her die hard supporters should take a long look.
The way I see it, Hillary is about to commit the biggest mis-calculation in her political life. She has lost the party, yet she thinks she can insist sticking around.
She runs out of time to hold on to her base after she is out. That means she will not have time to consolidate her base to clean up the mess she made during primary (campaign debt, NY state rift she created )
I don’t think she realizes how flimsy her loudest base are.
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/25/85939/7231/311/522429
Basically, without publicly saying he was endorsing Obama, Carter implied he would be doing so after June 3rd when the primaries are over. To quote Reuters:
“I’m a superdelegate … I think a lot of the superdelegates will make a decision quite, announced quite rapidly, after the final primary on June 3,” he told Sky News.
“I have not yet announced publicly, but I think at that point it will be time for her to give it up,” Carter said.
“If she wanted to cite a primary race that was decided late she could have used 1976, when Carter didn’t clinch the nomination until after he won Ohio on June 8, or 1984 when Mondale’s victory in New Jersey on June 5 gave him the victory in his primary battle with Gary Hart. Both of these are more recent examples than Bobby Kennedy in 1968.”
As you can see, here are more recent examples of when the contest has gone into June. So again, people should just be patient and let this process run its course. There is no hurry.
Foucault May 25, 2008 at 8:21 am
As you can see, here are more recent examples of when the contest has gone into June. So again, people should just be patient and let this process run its course. There is no hurry.
yeah but you are ignoring some important differences:
1. Current primary started very early and is a prolonged skirmish that start to get ugly for party prospect.
2. This gives republican chance to regroup. (tho’ so far McCain campaign is a giant mess. I am surprised he hasn’t moved further in poll)
3. that example is just ugly to bring out. assassination? come on. Is she really ready to take presidency when actual assassination happen? That administration will be cursed with the biggest jinx in nation’s history. Nothing will work right.
all in all it’s not necessary.
anyway, Hillary just lost the party bigwigs. She has only less than 2 weeks to consolidate her base to fix her finance and reset her senate supporters.
If she keeps throwing tantrum, she will be one of the weakest senator around and is going nowhere fast. The incoming president will reconstruct the entire party to his liking, so she better get with the program, since she won’t have Clintonistas insider to support her anymore.
(no money, no schmoozing, no lucrative connection. All gone in a blink)
pretty much Hillary has lost most if not all her political capital
poke poke http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAGhA918glY
Smallest violin in the world. Didn’t she push elitism, bittergate, wright, etc.? Now she is talking about context? Who is going to give her a break?
http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/shameless-hiillary-blames-all-of-us-for.html
Today, Clinton blamed everyone else for taking her comments out of context:
Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable.
I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year’s primary contest is nothing unusual.
Once again, she’s the smartest person ever — and everyone else is wrong. Oh, she’s also staying in the race. Big surprise. But, what she doesn’t get is that there is no context that would make what she said acceptable.
I have this sad feeling that Foucault is one of those so-called feminists who is gearing up to vote for McCain because she is actually so racist she can’t bear to vote for a black person.
I never really believed all the stuff about “feminism is just a bunch of racist middle class white women who are every bit as invested in disenfranchising the poor people of color as white middle class men are.” Now I’m kind of starting to, or at least starting to believe that of a certain branch of the movement. Thanks, Ms. Rodham-Clinton, for actually causing me to doubt and scorn people who just a few short years ago were my heroes.
Or a white man.
Or a white woman!”
What an asshat. I guess he really needed to cover all his bases, didn’t he. But what about those Latino men? And the Latina women who might one day run for president? Shouldn’t Keith be worried about how using a scary word like “assassination” could also dash THEIR hopes?
Given our overall national history (not just in the political arena), I think it far more likely that some nutbag would kill a black man before they’d kill a white woman.
There’s a legitimate, if almost unspoken about, fear for Sen. Obama’s safety in this race. Unfortunately, we are still a nation where racism gets a pass and is generally acceptable. Think “states’ rights.”
“Given our overall national history (not just in the political arena), I think it far more likely that some nutbag would kill a black man before they’d kill a white woman.”
Oh really? Because so many more black MEN have been the victims of domestic violence, rape, and murder than black or white WOMEN, right? I can’t believe this absolute nonsense.
The only reason a woman leader has not been assassinated in America is because we haven’t elected one. Get a grip on reality.
And no, I actually would support Obama in the general election if he secures the nomination. I can’t vote yet because I’m just a Permanent Resident, so I have no real horse in the race. But I am not crazy enough to cross that political bridge and rally around McCain, no matter how I might feel about Obama.
“Get a grip on reality.”
After You.
Hey Roxie,
Why don’t you try to refute my assertion that more men than women are victims of violence each year?
Here you go, bozo.
http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html
“MURDER. Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends. That’s approximately 1,400 women a year, according to the FBI. The number of women who have been murdered by their intimate partners is greater than the number of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War.”
Yes, but Foucault we have had women as leaders in major social movements in this country who were NOT assassinated, the same cannot be said about MLK, and Malcolm X
Here is a list I found on Wikipedia of US assassinated people. While I question why some are on this list, as they were not killed in the US, there is only one woman on the list and she was an entertainer. (and for their criteria some aren’t on the list yet like Biggie Smalls)
I’ve embolden those who were not in politics, and put an asterisk by those who were in civil rights/social movements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_people
Name and American woman, who was a leader of a social movement or civil rights organization that has been assasinated. i.e. abolition, temperance, suffrage, union, feminist, etc.
Well, part of the problem with thinking about assasinations in the US is that so many women activists had male patrons and relatives that gave them some degree of protection. They weren’t all that subject to the whole Race War memetics that minorities endured.
Also, there were very few women in US history who had major political/social power that emanated from their own charisma. No Rosa Luxemborgs. No Benizir Bhuttos. As such, the only women who were even close to being assasinated were women like Rosa Parks, or various Native American women.
Lastly, we have this thing called a rape culture. It’s much easier for society to shut up a pesky women short of lethal violence than it would be for pesky men.
On another topic…
I can’t believe it hasn’t been reinforced enough, but Hillary Clinton had to go back to RFK because most of the other lengthened primary battles that have happened since ‘68 have all resulted in pretty massive defeats…Carter in ‘80, Mondale in ‘84, Ford in ‘76.
One last off topic thing. Fake Sincerity can be a hard thing to do. Some people apparently believe that Hillary Clinton can use racists and racist tropes and be merely cynical and not be racist herself. I think that is a harder stretch than people are willing to accept. It’s pretty hard to say and do repugnant things and do it with a straight face. Even for a politician.
shah8-
the rape culture exists elsewhere. AS far as Benazir is concerned she came from a powerful political family in Pakistan. Assassins have been getting closer and closer to Pakistani leaders all the time. The man who murdered her father was ultimately assassinated with a bomb aboard the plane he was flying.
What is remarkable in that Benazir was successfully protected for so long. It was the patrons of her father, the PPP and her relatives, etc. that gave her some degree of protection.
So Benazir does not fit your model.
But whatever it is that has kept a female (black or white) political/social etc. leader from being assassinated in this country, the fact remains that African Americans in the same positions have been targetted and murdered successfully.
And I think Foucault trying to interweave domesitc violence into assinations diminishes both crimes.
And yes shah. I agree it is maddening for them to run the “let’s take it to the convention” provide instances where it did go to the convention but not take the additional two steps and recognized that Democrats lost those races.
I kept watching Matthews try and make the point to McAlliffe (who was doing a smily bobble head doll impression) that yes it’s good for the media if the fight between these two continue but not neccessarily good for the party…. Terry only heard the good for the media with out connecting the dots of why iots good for the media …. or he did and just doesn’t care.
Hillary team start shooting randomly blaming everybody.
www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=desperado&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3AdesperadoPost%3Ac7866608-bccb-4e72-be02-9cacfe5b5b7b
from the Washington Post:
“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign of fanning a controversy over her describing the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy late in the 1968 Democratic primary as one reason she is continuing to run for the presidency
The Obama campaign tried to take these words out of context,” Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said on “Fox News Sunday.” “She was making a point merely about the time line.”
Ah yes, the dreaded out of context. The last refuge of someone trying to defend an indefensible statement. Tell me Terry, exactly what would be the proper context in referring to the assassination of a presidential candidate? Just curious.
someone please show me where and how he fanned the flames and took her out of context . . . please, where, prove it . . . she can say whatever she wants, but prove it. it was John Aravosis at Americablog who broke the story
I agree that the rape culture exists mostly everywheres.
I still think Bhutto fits. If you haven’t noticed, the subcontinent has a rather pronounced tendency to kill female authority figures, some of them by their own family. B.Bhutto was a cultural and political authority on scale never seen with any US female leader. And she did it with some support by her parents, but she also survived many intrafamily conflicts.
“The last refuge of someone trying to defend an indefensible statement. Tell me Terry, exactly what would be the proper context in referring to the assassination of a presidential candidate? Just curious.”
You need to lay off the Red Bull or whatever else you are drinking to drown your brain cells. She didn’t refer to the assassination of a presidential candidate. She referred to the assassination of someone who has been dead for over thirty years.
If Clinton is playing the Pakistani politics, she’d be gone soon after she yapp about that Tuzla shooting or any religious talk. She is nowhere near Bhutto political calibre.
Poking fun about assassination of strong political family? gone before she can do parsing dance. Half of her supporter would be dead by now with her style of talk. (ethnic flame bait? not very smart)
(The greatest world female leader is still Indira gandhi, btw.)
Let’s just say, she is not ready to become a president. Her mouth is more dangerous than Bush.
I guess you are not ready to face the blogging while under the influence question, eh squashed? I can smell you through the ether.
she refers to reasoning why she might still able to get the nomination, the possibility of her rival being assassinated.
(implying that alone, in a lot of country is enough to cause physical clash between political supporter. add religious and ethnic dimension, that she played, she is a goner in most places on earth.)
how about this: from this campaign alone, so far she would need to mend fence with Russia, china, OPEC countries, Iran’s allies.
I doubt anybody in the middle east will take her seriously. (ie. they will give them polite nod and endless wild goose chase.)
One word: Rehab.
Amy Winehouse is that you?
I guess it all depends on how you define tendency.
In assassinated female PMs it’s 2:4
Indira Gandhi 4th Prime Minister of India
and Benazir Bhutto 12th & 18th Prime Minister of Pakistan
both assassinated
vs
Khaleda Zia - 9th & 11th Prime Minister of Bangladesh
and Sheikh Hasina - 10th Prime Minister of Bangladesh
both very much alive
(I didn’t count the queen of Nepal because power rested with her husband)
But I think if you look at the list below it is more accurate to say that the sub continent rather pronounced tendency to kill ANY authority figures
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives
Bangladesh
Mujibur Rahman, (1975), president of Bangladesh
Fazlul Haq Mani, (1975), politician
Abdur Rab Serniabat, (1975), politician
Tajuddin Ahmed, (1975), politician
Syed Nazrul Islam, (1975), politician
Mohammad Mansoor Ali, (1975), prime minister
Khaled Mosharraf, (1975), coup organizer
Ziaur Rahman, (1981), president of Bangladesh
Bhutan
Jigme Palden Dorji, (1964), Prime Minister of Bhutan
India
Brhadrata, (185 BC), last ruler of the Mauryan dynasty
Abul-Fazel, (1602), vizier of the Mughal emperor Akbar
Mohandas Gandhi, (1948), Independence leader
Indira Gandhi, (1984), Indian prime minister
Rajiv Gandhi, (1991), Indian prime minister
Beant Singh(Chief Minister), (1995), chief minister of Punjab
Phoolan Devi, (2001), bandit queen turned politician and activist for people of lower castes
Abdul Ghani Lone, (2002), moderate leader of Kashmiri Muslims
General Arun Shridhar Vaidya, Chief of Army Staff, Indian Army from 1983 to 1986.
Nepal
Birendra, (2001), King of Nepal (along with Queen Aiswary and 9 other members of the royal family)
Pakistan
Liaquat Ali Khan, (1951), Prime Minister of Pakistan
Hayat Khan Sherpao, (1975), Former Governor of NWFP
Meena Keshwar Kamal, (1987), Afghan founder of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, (1988), 10-year President of Pakistan and 12-year Chief of Army Staff in a sabotage-induced aircraft crash.
Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, (1989), militant Islamist, near Peshawar
Fazle Haq, (1991), former governor of the Northwest Frontier province, Pakistan, from 1978 to 1985
Ghulam Haider Wyne, (1993), Chief Minister of Punjab from 1990 - 1993
Iqbal Masih, (1995), 13-year-old anti-child labor activist, in Rakh Baoli
Hakim Said, (1998), Founder of Hamdard Foundation and Hamdard University, Karachi. Former Governor of Sindh
Siddiq Khan Kanju, (2001), former foreign minister of Pakistan from 1991 to 1993
Benazir Bhutto, (2007), former Prime Minister of Pakistan, by unknown assassins
Sri Lanka
Solomon Bandaranaike, (1959), Sri Lankan socialist prime minister, by Buddhist monk Talduwe Somarama
Alfred Duraiyapah, (1975), former Mayor, Jaffna, by Tamil Tigers
A. Thiagarajah, (1981), MP, Vaddukoddai, by PLOTE
V. Dharmalingam, (1985), MP, Manipay, by TELO aligned to Indian Intelligence Agency
K. Alalasunderam, (1985), MP, Kopay, by TELO aligned to Indian Intelligence Agency
A. Majeed, (1987), former MP, Mutur, by Tamil Tigers??
Vijaya Kumaratunga, (1989), movie actor turned SLFP-SLMP politician, by JVP.
Stanley Wijesundara (1989), Colombo University Vice Chancellor, by JVP.
V. Yogeswaran, (1989), former MP, Jaffna, by dissident group of LTTE aligned to Indian Intelligence Agency
A. Amrithalingam, (1989), former MP, General Secretary, TULF, by dissident group of LTTE aligned to Indian Intelligence Agency
K.Gunaratnam, (1989), business entrepreneur, by JVP.
Rohana Wijeweera, (1989), founder of JVP, by Sri Lankan Armed Forces
T. Ganeshalingam, (1990), Minister, North East Provincial Council, by Tamil Tigers
Sam Tambimuttu, (1990), MP, Batticaloa, by Tamil Tigers
P. Kirubakaran, (1990), Finance Minister, North East Provincial Council, by Tamil Tigers
V. Yogasankari, (1990), MP, Jaffna, by Tamil Tigers
K. Kanagaratnam, (1990), MP, Eastern Province, by Tamil Tigers
Ranjan Wijeratne, (1991), Minister of State, Defence
Ranasinghe Premadasa, (1993), President of Sri Lanka, by Tamil Tigers
Ossie Abeygunasekara, (1994), member of Parliament Sri Lanka, by Tamil Tigers
Dr. Gamini Wijesekara, (1994), member of Parliament Sri Lanka, by Tamil Tigers
Weerasinghe Mallimarachchi, (1994), member of Parliament Sri Lanka, by Tamil Tigers
G. M. Premachandra, (1994), member of Parliament Sri Lanka, by Tamil Tigers
Gamini Dissanayake, (1994), Presidential candidate, UNP, member of Parliament Sri Lanka, by Tamil Tigers
Thomas Anton, (1995), Deputy Mayor, Batticaloa, by Tamil Tigers
Arunachalam Thangathurai, (1997), member of Parliament Trincomalee
Mohammad Maharoof, (1997), Member of Parliament (MP), Trincomalee, by Tamil Tigers
Sarojini Yogeswaran, (1998), Jaffna Mayor, by Tamil Tigers
S. Shanmuganadan, (1998), Member of Parliament (MP), by Tamil Tigers
Ponnudurai Sivapalan, (1998), Jaffna Mayor, by Tamil Tigers
Neelan Thiruchelvam, (1999), Member of Parliament (MP) and TULF leader
C. V. Gunaratne, (2000), cabinet minister, by Tamil Tigers
M.H.M.ASHRAF, (2000), cabinet minister,SLMC Leader ,not found yet
Joseph Pararajasingham, (2005), Tamil MP in Batticalo, by GoSL supported para-military
Karuna Group
Lakshman Kadirgamar, (2005), foreign minister, by Tamil Tigers
Vanniasingham Vigneswaran, (2006), Tamil rights activist by GoSL supported Karuna Group
Parami Kulatunga, (2006), army general
Nadarajah Raviraj (2006), MP and Tamil National Alliance politician, by GoSL paramilitary Group
T. Maheswaran (2008), UNP Tamil MP for voicing human rights violations of GoSL, by Sri Lanka IB associate.
K. Sivanesan (2008), TNA Tamil MP for voicing human rights violations of GoSL, by Sri Lankan Army DPU.
source Wikipedia
squashed I hope I have a rather long comment in moderation .. other wise all that research going to waste is goning to suck
oh yes Meena (RAWA) was assassinated in Pakistan… but her power was in Afghanistan which is not part of the sub continent ..
and this is where this list is screwy …. if and American was assassinated outside the country, they are listed in the US section.
If an Afghani is assassinated outside Afghanistan, she is not listed in Afghanistan but the country where the assassination took place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_people
Foucault:
Ah, I didn’t realize that RFK was just some random guy. Not, you know, a presidential candidate, or something.
Seriously, Foucault, every time I think you can’t possibly get any more shamelessly dishonest, you prove me wrong. Every fucking time.
Dan, you’re the one who is shamefully dishonest.
RFK is not a presidential candidate. He’s a dead guy. And he is a totally random dead guy as far as I am concerned. I have no memory of him.
Perhaps this issue is a big deal to baby boomers, but I think most sane people of another generation are going, “What the Fuck?” I was sort of amused in reviewing Clinton’s statement, “We all remember how Robert Kennedy was assassinated…” Uh no, we don’t.
clytemnestra May 25, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I wonder how many of those assassination involved us?
Well, we can add current pakistani gov to the list, that one won’t last long.
Foucault May 26, 2008 at 7:19 am
RFK is not a presidential candidate. He’s a dead guy.
He was brought up because he was running in a primary as presidential candidate. Not current one of course, but hillary uses him as historical precedence. That there is possibility of assassination that will change the game in June. That it is not math that determined everything for second runner. Thus, Hillary is saying, if Obama isassassinated and I am sticking around beyond June. I might be the candidate. That is why I am staying, just like 1968.
“RFK is not a presidential candidate. He’s a dead guy. And he is a totally random dead guy as far as I am concerned. I have no memory of him.”
Cool! Can I try?
“MLK is not a presidential candidate. He’s a dead guy. And he is a totally random dead guy as far as I am concerned. I have no memory of him.”
“JFK is not a presidential candidate. He’s a dead guy. And he is a totally random dead guy as far as I am concerned. I have no memory of him.”
“Abraham Lincoln is not a presidential candidate. He’s a dead guy. And he is a totally random dead guy as far as I am concerned. I have no memory of him.”
Hey, that was fun! And it’s not like any of those dead guys matter, either then or now. They’re just dead guys! And dead guys have no effect on the living!
Now a guy like Ronald Reagan - now THERE was a guy who mattered…wait, he’s dead.
Okay, how about Richard Nixon? He had a lot of influence…oh, he’s dead too.
Franklin Roosevelt! He had a huge impact on world affairs…uh, sorry, I just heard he’s also dead.
I give up. This isn’t fun any more…
Squashed,
I don’t think she intended to suggest that she’s sticking around because someone may get assassinated. I suspect that she was simply drawing on her own, vivid cultural memories of primaries that have lasted longer than her own. People ask why she didn’t reference the primaries of the 1980s that lasted longer, and I suspect it might be because she wasn’t as involved (emotionally) in those races. She was probably raising a young daughter in the 1980s, and remembers the 1960s better.
However, I agree with you and many others that bringing up assassination at all was unnecessary and odd. It raises unpleasant connotations and causes people to jump to conclusions about her intentions.
But people need to get over this! Look at Liz Trotta and THAT is evil. Clinton was just stupid.
squashed -
well actually Musharraf’s government has been already been one ofthe longer ones in Pakistani history
He took control in a coup in October 1999, calling himself “Chief Executive” (there was no PM at this time) - he was in all facts and process the head of the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Musharraf
In effect he has been in power for 9 years.
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq was in power for 10 years (1978-1988) the government between these two only lasted one year.
As president only Muhammad Ayub Khan has lasted longer at 11 years. And no PM has ever gotten to 5 years.
Foucault May 26, 2008 at 8:46 am
that bringing up assassination at all was unnecessary and odd.
well. at least I know for sure it wasn’t by design, because the clintonistas are confuse and completely off the loop for 12-20 hrs. In blog time that’s eternal. They try to meekly doing damage control a little later (look up thread for time stamp) Hillary even wrote a NYDaily entry.
On top of that her bloggers shill didn’t seem to have talking point and PR narrative prepared. (contrast this for eg. to bittergate, sexism, hillary wins pop.votes. etc. they have sustained pattern and talking points.
Whatever it is, at least we know the rate and efficiency of internal reaction time when it come to gaffe. Which bloggers are part of the PR machines.
clytemnestra May 26, 2008 at 9:59 am
well actually Musharraf’s government has been already been one ofthe longer ones in Pakistani history
I think partly: he control the ISI, he is also Islamist/nationalist and a US stooge. A rare combination. Previously everybody else only have 2 out of 3 combo in Pakistan.
but all in all, I think Pakistan is about to crumble because we install that very weak bunch after Bhutto gets blown up. That area is about to crumble big time if Bush/Condi clown crew keep messing up
Clytemnestra, thanks for all that info on female subcontinent leaders. That was interesting compilation of modern day leaders.
He can’t be both and Islamist and a nationalist. Both preclude the other. He may be wearing the cloak of Islamist because it buys him points in the NWFP, etc. BUT to truly be an Islamist means that you reject nationalism.
The “Islamists” want him out BECAUSE he is preceived to be a US stooge. Recent attempts on his life and the how close to his person they have become show the disaffection for him and how they have infilrated the military, a group which he has worked hard to keep (and must keep).
If Bush goes into Iran he will have created a “crescent” of instability with terror organizations reaping the benefits - they will also have an unfettered line to move between 2 to 3 to 4 continents. If Pakistan does fall there nuclear ordinance will roam every where.
Musharaff is still in power - and it’s never been as simple as demanding he hold elections. Under Bill we neglectted Pakistan because it was no longer a staging ground for our fight against the soviets. Just as we neglected Afghanistan. That neglect helped foster what we are dealing with today.
Side-stepping Foucault, I just really want to say this:
I think Clinton’s statements, especially in light of what not only 1968 did to the Democratic Party, but what it did to the Civil Rights Movement, were poorly thought out, and her apology should have been better. That having been said, you people who are busy going gaga over Keith Olbermann do remember that this is the same fuck who called for Hillary’s death and/or torture in a back room for the good of the party, correct? Or am I the only one who remembers it?
J.Goff .. proof?
Google. LITERALLY TWO SECONDS. Please. When it’s Clinton in the cross hairs, the outrage is less, isn’t it?
Thank you J. Goff. For once you truly impress me.
*eyeroll* It’s not all about you, Foucault.
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/26/223028/306/444/523329
From My Life by Bill Clinton - page 407, first sentence, last paragraph:
On April 7, we also won in Kansas, Minnesota and Wisconsin. On April 9, Paul Tsongas announced that he would not reenter the race. The fight for the nomination was effectively over. I had more than half the 2,145 delegates I needed to be nominated, and had only Jerry Brown to compete with the rest of the way in.
And a few pages over…
On June 2, I won the primaries in Ohio, New Jersey…Finally, I had clinched the nomination.
Last week Hillary Clinton said this, among other things of course, in South Dakota:
“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary,” Mrs. Clinton told the paper’s editorial board, “somewhere in the middle of June.”
=====
clytemnestraMay 26, 2008 at 12:45 pm
He can’t be both and Islamist and a nationalist.
I’ll google the article tomorrow. He is.
“*eyeroll* It’s not all about you, Foucault.”
I didn’t say it was. I was just glad that someone in this mix is able to see the sexism and implicit violence towards women that others chose not to acknowledge for whatever reasons. I think that is commendable on your part.
I’m going to defend Foucault here . . . . did any of you see the change in tone? She came out blazing and then after some calm talk where some people explained that they got that it could be a (as I put it) mental push pin marking time it, but it was still a stupid statement … she agreed it was a stupid statement.
There is a possibility of progress from both sides. but we all gotta talk and LISTEN
*****
J.Goff, Droll Jester of Tomatoey Goodness
- thank you I will check it out .. I am literally on for a few minutes, off doing things, on for a few more minutes
later
During the 1990s, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and successive governments employed Islamic extremism to challenge the Indian claim to Kashmir by undermining India’s conventional military superiority with asymmetrical attacks on soft and symbolic targets in Kashmir.
The ISI also attempted to gain “strategic depth” with regard to India by creating an arc of influence from Central Asia to Afghanistan. While Pakistan’s military establishment is regarded as professional and secular (with the exception of Zia, who attempted to bring Islam into the political and military sphere), it has not hesitated in using Islamic extremism to battle its enemies. This was seen in Pakistan’s support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan until September 11, 2001, and support for Islamic extremist groups in Kashmir.
Under President Pervez Musharraf, Islamic extremists entered Pakistan’s mainstream political sphere as Musharraf empowered extremists in order to marginalize Pakistan’s secular opposition parties while using the growth of Islamic extremism to justify his non-democratic rule.
www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JB27Df02.html
www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JB23Df03.html
Fractured election verdict
First, a close assessment of the election results in Pakistan will show that what is available from the February 18 polls is a fractured verdict by the Pakistani people.
A coalition government has become inevitable. This does not augur well for political stability. Coalition politics would be far too sophisticated for Pakistan at this juncture. The requisite political culture of give-and-take needs to develop over time. Besides, PPP and PML-N are both centrist parties, which are vying more or less for the same political space. A political alliance between the two parties - a “grand coalition” - cannot endure for long due to their mutual antipathies rooted in history and their divergent ideologies.
Also, Washington has a sense of uneasiness about the PML-N’s plank of “Islamist nationalism”. It may not be warranted, but it is there. PML-N seems to be already anticipating an early mid-term poll and likely sees the February 18 election as only a “semi-final”. In any case, PML-N’s priority will be to consolidate in the heartland province of Punjab, where it is poised to form the government.
As for the PPP leadership, its priorities are different from PML-N’s. After some 11 years in political wilderness, the party seniors are naturally eager to grasp the opportunity to form the new government at the federal level as well as in Sindh province. In Sindh, PPP may well have to co-habit with the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), the party of migrants from India, which is a strong supporter of Musharraf. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that PPP does not have the stomach for confrontational politics at this juncture.